It seems Steinmetz, a Tempe resident, was doing nothing wrong up until
the moment he pointed the weapon inadvertently at two women in the
"B"-gate waiting area. Police tell New Times that, in general,
it's not illegal to carry a semiautomatic rifle into an airport
terminal. In this case, the problem was "the way he was carrying it,"
says Phoenix police Sergeant Steve Martos.

It seems unlikely that Dr. Steinmetz will be convicted of anything. The police acknowledge that he did nothing wrong up until he allegedly allowed the muzzle of his rifle to briefly point in the direction of two women in the coffee shop.

The allegation is that the muzzle of his rifle briefly was pointed at
two women at the airport, who later told police they were fearful of
the gun. Steinmetz claimed he was just there to get a cup of coffee.

Here is the Arizona law that the police used to arrest the doctor. The arrest resulted in national publicity and his suspension from his job. The only applicable part of the code seems to be number 6. ARS 13-2904:

A. A person commits disorderly conduct if, with intent to disturb the peace or quiet of a neighborhood, family or person, or with knowledge of doing so, such person:

There are two elements to this law that must be met. First, the person has to have either the intent or knowledge that they are disturbing the peace or quiet of a neighborhood, family, or person. Then the law lists a number of ways in which it is impermissible to intentionally or knowingly do this. The last one listed, 6., involves weapons, and is a felony.

The problem for the prosecutor in this case will be to prove intent or knowledge. The police have already said that the muzzle sweep was accidental and momentary. They already acknowledge that the doctor was not doing anything illegal up to that point.

So how does a prosecutor show intent and/or knowledge for an accidental and momentary event? I do not think they can.

What this shows is suppression of protected political speech by police who did not like what was being communicated. Dr. Steinmetz is a known second amendment activist. He was at the unsecured part of the airport in a previous event in November, demonstrating against TSA search techniques.

You see the two pictures of Dr. Steinmetz shown above. I doubt that you have any difficulty determining which one is being shown on national media. The old media is all in favor of police repression of political rights that they do not approve of.

Alan Korwin sums up the case:

While reluctant to say too much about the case, given the lack of
information or stated motive by Steinmetz, Korwin believes the "bottom
line is if you have a right and you can't exercise it, do you have that
right?"

"He's putting his life, his fortune and his sacred honor on the line
for his beliefs -- it sounds like that's what he's doing," Korwin adds.

Long after these images are shown, I suspect that Dr. Steinmetz will be found not guilty.His arrest will have been just another attempt by the establishment to suppress the first and second amendments.

Update:
The good
doctor did not have to wait so very long after all. He was represented
by Marc Victor. From Alan Korwin just minutes ago, quoting Dr. Steinmetz:

"No charges have been filed and my two hearings have been vacated."

Update2 This information is from an unnamed source, but it is claimed that there is video confirmation. I have not seen the video:

According to the security video (it's an airport, you can't escape big
brother's surveillance cameras) the muzzle 'dipped slightly' - possibly
in their direction but well over their heads. Apparently and LEO
friendly with one of our members was on-site, and reported that at no
time was anyone swept.

On Sunday, the Berkshire Eagle ran an editorial urging Massachusetts
lawmakers and residents to “heed” police chiefs who want more discretion
to deny citizens the right to own or possess firearms. Gun rights
activists in that state are tired of police chiefs who treat the Second
Amendment as a highly-regulated government privilege rather than a
constitutionally protected civil right.

(snip)

“There is a virtual news blackout of the fact that WSLEFIA took its
positions on the initiatives a year ago,” Burris told his audience, “and
the fact that the Washington Council of Police and Sheriff’s voted to
oppose 594 and support 591 on June 27. The news media have an anti-gun
bias, we know that. They don’t want to examine the issue; they just want
their rich anti-gun cronies to succeed in passing 594.”

Eversole said Sexton, a coal miner, was at home asleep when he was
awakened by barking dogs. Sexton then walked outside to see a man in his
ginseng field. Sexton hollered at the man to get out of the field, but
the man made an aggressive move towards him. That is when Sexton shot
the man.

The victim, an information technology worker at the UofL School of
Dentistry, was held up about 8:30 a.m. at the Marshall Court apartments
near Jackson and Liberty Streets east of downtown, said LMPD spokesman
Dwight Mitchell. The robbery victim did not live at the apartment
complex, Mitchell said.

Both men, who have not been identified,
were taken to University of Louisville Hospital with non-life
threatening injuries, police said. The UofL worker had a gunshot wound
to the leg, according to UofL spokesman John Drees.

A Madison County homeowner shot a 16-year-old boy who was breaking into
his house, wounding the teen, according to the Sheriff's Office.
Investigators arrested the 16-year-old and are looking for a second
young man involved in the attempted burglary, they said on Monday.

The stay of the permanent injunction ordered by Judge Frederic J. Scullin in the Palmer v. D.C. case has raised considerable ire among those who believe that the right to keep and bear arms has been denied in the District of Columbia for far too long. Many thought that if constitutional carry were allowed for a period of time in the District, crime rates would have dropped. Alan Gura predicted such a drop. Many thought a crime rate drop would make it hard to justify a stay.
Some accused Alan Gura of being an accomplice of the establishment in
limiting the effect of the ruling.

Others are convinced that Alan Gura has done a masterful job of managing the inevitable issuance of a stay to forward the ends of restoring second amendment rights. From commenter Dirk Diggler at TheTruthAboutGuns.com:

there are certain rules that apply in this
situation. A stay is reasonable to allow DC to craft legislation that
the judge said they had to have. An open-ended stay is not. 90 days for a
municipality to craft rules is reasonable. just remember – DC is a
federal enclave. The House is working to de-fund alot of DC’s anti-gun
agenda/budget exactly for crap like this. I am hopeful given the $$$
hanging over their head like the sword of damacles . . . Congress will
be on a 5 week recess, but the DC Council better not screw the pooch on
this one or they will lose more $$$ that they don’t have.

The judge is not stupid. He is following the law to prevent chaos.
Illinois got 210 days to craft legislation. Remember that it has to be
voted upon several times. go to different committees. allow for public
comment. get voted on again, sveral times. Legislation is like
making sausage. You just want the outcome and not have to watch the
process.

anyhow – DC knows its days are numbered. They have the judge telling
them which cases (Peruta) he thought were reasonable. They know they
cannot ban out of staters as well as have a blanket prohibition on
carry. once the legislation is crafted, it will be public before it
gets voted on. that’s when you contact your federal rep/senator and
raise hell since Congress oversees DC and its budget. make it difficult
for them to try the same sneaky crap they tried in Chiraq. NRA and SAF
can organize a campaign with the local chamber and tourist board.
think of how many visitors DC can attract now or better yet, lose when
it is highlighted how out of touch the city politicians are with the
rest of the country. No – this stay is ok. Glad it is only 90 days and
not 180. they will go by quickly.

Dirk is an attorney. Others made clear that if Judge Scullin had not granted a stay, it was likely that a worse, longer stay would have been granted by the appeals court. From Thundar at opencarry.org:

The way the 90 day order is written is actually a very good order for gun owners. Those that would suppress our civil rights were always going to get some sort of stay either from Scullin or from the Circuit Court. 90 days (instead of 180 days) and only for writing constitutional laws is a good thing. Not giving DC grounds to appeal the stay at this time is another good thing.

Remember this order is not a general stay, but a stay so that the district may draft constitutional law if they so choose. The district has 45 days to appeal the ruling. If DC appeals the ruling, the stay goes away. So the district has until September 9 to appeal the ruling. If they do appeal, the DC Council will not be in session until 15 September. So it would appear that in order to appeal, the district would have another period under which constitutional carry would apply.

Gura is smart. He is playing to win. Appearing reasonable and not backing the decider into a corner is good when dealing with a single district court judge. It also sets a tone for the length of stays in the future - 90 days instead of 180 days.

Here is a link to the pdf file of court ordered Stay in Palmer v. D.C. I have transcribed it below for those who do not wish to open the pdf. Any errors in the copy below are mine. The formatting is a little different from the original, and I have cut out the addressing. I believe it makes the order easier to read. I have added links to the D.C. code mentioned.

ORDER

In a Memorandum-Decision and Order dated July 24, 2014, this Court concluded that the
District of Columbia's total ban on the carrying of handguns in public was unconstitutional; and, therefore, the Court permanently enjoined Defendants from enforcing D.C. Code §§ 7-2502(a)(4)
and 22-4504(a).

On July 28, 2014, Defendants filed a partially unopposed motion to stay pending appeal
or, in the alternative, for 180 days and for immediate administrative stay. See Dkt. No. 52 at 1. In support of this motion, Defendants' counsel advised the Court that he had conferred with
Plaintiffs' counsel, "who indicated that [P]laintiffs do not oppose a 90-day stay starting
immediately 'pending the city council enacting remedial legislation that complies with
constitutional standards.'" See id. at 1-2.

Based on the parties' agreement that an immediate 90-day stay is appropriate to provide
the city council with an opportunity to enact appropriate legislation consistent with the Court's
ruling,1 the Court hereby

ORDERS that Defendants' motion for a stay is GRANTED to the extent that the Court's
July 24, 2014 Order is stayed nunc pro tunc for 90 days, i.e., until October 22, 2014; and the
Court further

ORDERS that Plaintiffs shall file their opposition to Defendants' motion for a stay pending appeal on or before August 4, 2014; and the Court further

ORDERS that Defendants may file a reply in further support of their motion for a stay
pending appeal on or before August 11, 2014. 2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 29, 2014
Syracuse, New York

Note 1 The Court notes that it sees no need to clarify its decision. The only issue before the
Court was whether the District of Columbia's complete ban on the carrying of handguns in
public was unconstitutional. Thus, the Court's injunction clearly applied only to handguns and
not any other type of deadly dangerous weapon.

Note 2 Based on the papers that Defendants have filed in support of their motion for a stay
pending appeal, the Court is not convinced that Defendants will be able to demonstrate a
likelihood of success on the merits to warrant such a stay. Nonetheless, the Court will provide
the parties with an opportunity to present their arguments in full before ruling on this part of
Defendants' motion.

This looks more and more like a smart strategy on the part of Alan Gura. Notice that both parties are required to present argument as to why or why not a stay should be granted pending appeal. The court explicitly says that court is "not convinced that Defendants will be able to demonstrate a
likelihood of success on the merits to warrant such a stay". To me, that makes it likely that if the District decides to appeal, the stay will be lifted, just as Thundar noted above.

On Monday, 28 July, a robbery was attempted at a Chesapeake, Virgina Exxon station. It wasn't the first time. The reporter stated that it was the second robbery at the station this month. The robber displayed "a dark colored handgun". As the robber was leaving the store, the clerk fired several shots.

At first, it was not clear if any of the shots had connected. Then, 35 minutes after the holdup, 19 year old Terry Graves checked into Maryview Hospital with a gunshot wound to the shoulder. His picture is shown above. From wavy.com:

Investigators
confirmed Graves was the suspect who had been shot at the gas station,
and he was arrested.

The woman pictured, Michelle Barber, was arrested and charged with driving the getaway vehicle. Both were charged with robbery and use of a firearm in commission of a crime.

This story shows the utility of fighting back. Even though no one was killed, the wound was sufficient to lead to an arrest, and an excellent chance of conviction. The match with DNA evidence at the scene and video footage is likely to be conclusive.

No information was given as to the caliber of the firearm used. From the picture, it appears that either Graves was facing the clerk or the bullet completely passed through Graves, leaving an exit wound. The location of the bandage would indicate a likely penetration of the left lung, but without further information, we cannot be sure. Any penetrating wound of the torso is serious; however, a good friend of mine was stabbed in the chest, with the lung being punctured. He was treated at the hospital and insisted on being released. He healed very well and did not require additional treatment. He was in his 80's at the time.

The armed response of the clerk is likely to lead to a reduction of robberies in the area, at least for a time.

The District council is on recess, and will not reconvene until 15 September, 2014. That is 48 days. That leaves 42 days, or six weeks to pass the necessary legislation. In the meantime, legislation authored by Representative Massie, which would cut funding for enforcement of the D.C. gun laws, has passed the house.

This the government of the District of Columbia is under double pressure to conform their law to the Constitution. If they do not do so, he is under no obligation to renew the stay.

I would have preferred that the injunction remain in place. We would quickly determine if the D.C. crime rate would rise or fall. All previous evidence is that it would fall.

Now we wait until the 22th of October. No extensions should be given. The people of the nation have had their rights suppressed for far too long already.

In reality, there is no need for new legislation. The registration process in the District is far more burdensome than obtaining a permit to carry concealed in nearly all the other states. The rules that the City established, published by Chief Lanier under the injunction, would work perfectly well. The District could then work to reduce the ridiculous burdens imposed on its residents by the registration scheme.

Update: I have read the stay. It explicitly grants the stay in order for the District ot craft legislation, not for an appeal. Both sides will submit further arguements.

Tuesday, July 29, 2014

D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier has issued more guidance for D.C. police, dealing with the court order in Palmer v. D.C. That Court decision ruled that the District's laws against the carry of pistols in public are unconstitutional. The Chief initially told officers that carry outside of the home was legal for D.C. residents that had legally registered handguns, and for non-residents who could legally carry in their state of residence. Now she has clarified that officers must have a reasonably articulable suspicion (RAS) of a crime before a person carrying a gun may be legally stopped. Here is a pdf file of the memo:

Officers need reasonable, articulable, suspicion of a crime in order to conduct a stop of a person in possession of a firearm.

No one knows when or if a stay to the injunction ordered by the court will be granted. It appears that one person has already legally open carried in D.C. All other District laws are in force, such as the prohibition on possession of magazines with a capacity of over 10 rounds.

The homeowner retrieved a shotgun and struck Beaudoin over the head
several times, breaking the stock off the shotgun according to the
sheriff.

The sheriff says Beaudoin then fled the scene to another home a few
miles away where a 72-year-old woman let Beaudoin into her home.
Jespersen says Beaudoin began assaulting the woman.

"He was choking her and banging her head off the floor. Of course, the
son came out and saw that. He told him to get off of her and he was
going to get his gun. When he turned around in his bedroom the guy
jumped at him and he shot him," Jespersen said.

Investigators believe Wilcinot approached a 16-year-old
sitting in a car near 13th and Otoe streets around 2 a.m. Sunday and
demanded his keys, punched him and forced his way into the car, Capt.
Michon Morrow said.

The 16-year-old left the area, but a
friend of the 16-year-old came out of a nearby house with a gun, fired a
warning shot and demanded that the suspect leave, police said.

Wilcinot
then got out of the car and was shot multiple times, Morrow said.
Scheinost said no other arrests have been made in the incident.

Police say an elderly couple was arguing with a man they did not know,
who was intoxicated and belligerent in front of their home. When the man
refused to leave their property, police say the homeowner went and got
his gun, came back out and fired at the man.

The Autauga County Grand Jury has cleared a Booth homeowner in a case
where she shot and killed an armed burglar who had forced his way inside
her home.

(snip)

The incident occurred on April 4 shortly after midnight. Reports from
the Autauga County Sheriff's Office show that Mikel Smith, 18, of
Marbury, forced his way into the home while armed with a knife. Smith
had told the homeowner that his vehicle had broken down nearby and that
he needed assistance, he then forced his way into the home, the reports
show.

The woman had gone to the door, armed with a .32 cal.
revolver, sheriff reports show. She shot Smith several times, the
reports show.

The city would ask for a stay pending the resolution of the appeal — they can ask for that, and we would oppose that.

The city would ask, in the alternative, for a shorter, closed-ended stay of the Palmer decision to allow the city council time to enact remedial legislation. In Moore,
the state of Illinois received first 180 days, then over our strenuous
objections, another 30 days on top of that. We would not agree to
anything in that neighborhood here, but we would not oppose a shorter
stay that would give the city council some reasonable window in which to
make a decision, without frustrating the progress of the appeal. The
decision as to whether to grant any stays and if so for how long, of
course, belongs to the courts.

I’d expect the city to file something later this afternoon.

Remember, Alan had to petition the Court twice for a writ of mandamus to obtain this decision. He has been frustrated by the lack of response for nearly five years. I do not believe that he will allow the city to obtain an open ended stay that would result in further interminable delay of this case, unopposed.

We have not seen any documents that he has submitted to the court in response to the city's request for a stay.

Here are screen shots of the actual orders that were sent to D.C. police about how to handle people who are carrying guns in the District of Columbia, while the Court Injunction is in effect. Here is a link to the PDF file if you prefer that.

Here is the second page:

It seems clear that if you may legally carry a pistol where you legally reside, then you may legally carry in the District of Columbia. Of course, they also have gun free school zones, and federal buildings where you may not carry.

If you go to DC to carry, or for a photo op in doing so, do due diligence and be careful.

In Michigan, two Cane Corsos, a large breed descended from Roman war dogs, attacked a jogger. A neighbor saw that the jogger was down with the dogs attacking him. He defended the attacked man with a .44 magnum, firing two shots, one in the air, the other at one of the dogs, grazing it. That stopped the attack. Later one of the dogs tried to return to the attack, but left when it saw the man with the gun. From freep.com:

A man mowing his lawn waved at Sytsma, a 46-year-old Livonia man, who
politely waved back. The man said he continued mowing the lawn and the
next time he saw Sytsma, he was in a nearby ditch being attacked by two
loose dogs.

(snip)

The man who had been mowing shot a handgun into the air. Still, the dogs
would not let go. So he shot at one of the dogs, grazing it in the
side.

The attacked man later died. Cane Corsos tend to weigh over a 100 lbs as adults. From wikipedia:

The Cane Corso is not recommended for novice dog owners. As a puppy, it
requires strong leadership and consistent training. Its natural instinct
is to be suspicious of strangers and for this reason it is highly
encouraged to begin socialization as soon as possible. Ideally the Cane
Corso should be indifferent when approached and should only react in a
protective manner when a real threat is present.

These multiple dog attacks show the utility of firearms in defending against animals.

Private buyers competed with ShopRite food cards for guns at a Baltimore City gun turn in "buy back" on Saturday, the 26th of July. That may be one reason that this event only collected half as many guns as last year's event did. 231 guns were turned in this year, 460 last year. The term "buy back" is a bit of propaganda, because the people buying the guns never owned them in the first place. From baltimoresun.com:

Several men holding signs that said "$$ Cash for Guns" stood outside the event, trying to persuade people to sell their guns to them instead. They were later run off by the gun buyback organizers. One of the men, who declined to give his name, said they didn't want to see historic guns melted down. "We're trying to save a part of history," he said.

One of the people turning in two guns that she had inherited from her Grandfather had no idea what the guns were or how much they were worth. She did, however believe that the "buy back" would not cut crime.

"The people who are committing the crimes aren't turning in their guns, and their guns are probably illegal," she said. "It's more people like us who have guns sitting around the house," who are turning them in.

This is precisely what criminologists and economists who study these events have concluded. The people who wrote "Freakonomics" agree.

This Rossi revolver is one of the handguns turned in at the event. Private buyers were prevented from buying handguns at the event due to Maryland's severely restrictive gun laws.

It is significant that even in Maryland, with all its restrictions, private buyers have the courage to brave official disapproval and attend this event.

These private additions to the public turn-in are
effective, no doubt, in getting more guns off the street, because they
add to the resources that are available to those who want to get rid of
guns for something of value, be it a grocery card or a number of twenty
dollar bills.

Private buyers make the turn-in in more effective by standing on the curb with "Cash for Guns"
signs, or at a folding table, willing to offer more than the gift card
for firearms that are more valuable. If numerous
private parties are available, more good guns are
transferred into responsible hands.

This action serves
many useful purposes. It stretches the turn-in budget so that more guns
can be taken off the street. It helps keep fearful widows from being
defrauded of most of the market value of the gun they are turning in.
It prevents valuable assets from being destroyed by bureaucratic
inflexibility. It is a win-win-win situation.

It also dispels the pernicious message that guns are bad and should be destroyed.

Those who discourage private buyers, such as what happened in Baltimore City, show that their purpose is more about perpetuating the notion that "guns are bad and should be turned in to police" than it is about "getting guns off the street".

It wasn't until 1932 that a permit was required to carry a concealed weapon in the District of Columbia. It was legal to carry pistols openly until 1943. At the time, it was clear that the prohibition on open carry did not apply to long arms.

In 1973 the District of Columbia was granted "home rule". In 1976, the new District government passed the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975. The law went into effect in 1977. It has been over 70 years since it was legal to openly carry a pistol in the District of Columbia.

In the recent court decision on Palmer v. D.C., judge Scully relies heavily on the Peruta decision in the Ninth Circuit, saying it is clear that their exists a constitutional right to carry guns outside the home, and that the existing bans on the general carry of guns outside the home are unconstitutional. Peruta strikes down the local discretion to deny carry permits to the vast majority of applicants.

The D.C. Police Chief has ordered the police force not to arrest people carrying pistols unless they have felony records. One unknown second amendment activist has taken the opportunity to obtain a photograph of himself openly carrying in the District.

Yesterday evening, Emily Miller tweeted that D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier had issued an order that police were not to arrest people who could legally carry in their home state; or D.C. residents who could now legally carry in the District of Columbia.

Lanier’s instructions to police also said that residents of other
jurisdictions without felony records would not be charged under the ban
on carrying pistols.

While the story emphasized that the D.C. attorneys will be seeking a stay, it is not certain that a stay would be granted or when it might be granted. Alan Gura is quoted:

“The decision is in effect, unless and until the court stays its
decision,” said Alan Gura, the lawyer who represents the group
challenging the ban.

Gura predicted that crime in the District will drop, that the removal of the burdensome restrictions will have an immediate, positive effect. The court decision resolves a case that was filed nearly five years ago. Alan Gura filed petitions for a write of mandamus (to force the court to make a decision) twice. The last time was on May 6th of this year.

Stays of a court order are usually only granted if the petitioner can show some harmful effect if the order is left in place.

In an order approved by Police Chief Cathy L.
Lanier, police were told that District residents are permitted to carry
pistols if the weapons are registered. Those who had not registered
their handguns could be charged on that ground, the instruction said.

The number of registered pistols is thought to be low.

Lanier’s
instructions to police also said that residents of other jurisdictions
without felony records would not be charged under the ban on carrying
pistols.

The District attorneys have said that they will be "seeking a stay shortly". It is not clear if the court will grant a stay.

STUNNING DEVELOPMENT: DC Police Chief Lanier just told force not to
arrest a person who can legally carry a gun in DC or any state.

As of 6:24 p.m. on July 27, 2014, this is a welcome development. Many have said that the D.C. political establishment will ignore the judges order. This shows that Police Chief Lanier is, at minimum, unwilling to be found in contempt. Notice the broad extent of the order: no arrests for a person who can legally carry a gun in D.C. or any State.

With 30 states having open carry without a permit, and over 11 million concealed carry permits valid in the United States, that is a lot of people who may legally carry in the District.

According to Emily Miller, the famous investigative reporter, DC Council Chairman Phil Mendelson emailed her this message in reaction to the District Court finding that the constitutional rights of Americans did not stop at the District borders:

"Because of the District's unique national security
concerns, the right to carry a firearm in public must be more heavily
restricted than any place else in the nation. Four U.S. presidents have
been assassinated by gunfire, and at least five others have
been shot at, including Ronald Regan who was seriously wounded in 1981.
Neither the Secret Service nor the Capitol Police will disclose all
incidents where they have recovered firearms, but we do know that just
two years ago someone hit the White House with gunfire, and there are
frequent threats on the foreign diplomatic corps."

Consider the preposterous assumptions inherent in that statement. It comes down to two.

1. Americans have to give up their rights to add some highly questionable measure of unproven protection to politicians and foreign diplomats.

2. Politicians are so much more important than other citizens, that no sacrifice on the part of the people is too much, if it makes the politicians feel a little safer.

This turns the core values of our constitutional republic on their head. Politicians are there to serve *us*. We do not exist to serve *them*. There is no lack of politicians. For every powerful politician, there are dozens; no, hundreds; no, thousands; of people just as able, that would love to have the opportunity to serve. They should assume the position in full knowledge that they assume some risk. They should realize that they serve *us*, and if a little more risk comes with the service, so that our rights are protected, that is something that every soldier already accepts. They should have to accept it as well if they want to represent *us*. Every single one of them has volunteered. All have fought hard for the position that they are in.

Politicians are plentiful and easily replaced. There is a virtual unlimited number of them. Our rights, however, are fragile flowers, constantly under assault by politicians. Once degraded, they are not easily built back up; once destroyed, it takes enormous effort, blood, and treasure to restore them. A great many Americans gave their lives to protect our rights. It is
not too much to ask that politicians take a little risk to preserve
them.

Life is risk. To live is to be at risk. Politicians, as public servants, should be willing to shoulder as much risk as the ordinary pizza delivery person or soldier. Most do. In return, they get the perks and privileges of representing us and wielding power in our name.

The Imperial accouterments that we have given the President are shameful for a free people. The Obamas' flagrant squandering of treasure for their ostentatious displays is more reminiscent of French Kings, Eastern Potentates, or Albanian Dictators, than a President of the United States.

The security that we have lavished on presidents, but not on lower levels of government officials, is far more than it should be.

Cut it back by half, and threats to the President will not be increased in any substantial amount. Shutting down an airport so that a President can get a haircut should be a thing of the past. Shutting down traffic in most of a city because a president is due to come that way, is insane.

Let us have no more foolish talk of the People giving up Rights for insignificant increases in a politician's security.

Sunday, July 27, 2014

Dick Heller (yes the famous Heller of the Supreme Court case) is celebrating the resounding victory in the Palmer v. D.C. carry outside the home case that was released yesterday. From Dick:

Within minutes of getting home and sitting down at my kitchen table, I
received a phone call. It was George Lyon, a plaintiff in the case as
well as an attorney. He shared the good news that Judge Scullin, who was
appointed by Justice Roberts, had issued a decision striking down the ridiculous and useless restrictions on self-defense with a firearm outside my home.

With George on the phone, we noted that at least for the next few
hours (or even days) Washington D.C. joins states like Arizona and
Vermont in being “constitutional carry” jurisdictions. George went on to
advise against strapping on my Buntline Special lest I run into an ill-informed member of the MPD and wind up “ventilated.”

Dick
would not have to parade around with his Buntline special. That could
be dangerous. He could however, put it on under a large shirt, go to a
few iconic D.C. landmarks, and briefly display it for photographic
proof to future generations that for at least a few hours, it was legal to openly carry weapons in the modern District of Columbia! He has minimal worry, because his handgun is already registered in the District of Columbia.

Emily Miller is the famous investigative reporter who wrote the series "Emily Gets Her Gun" about applying for a permit to legally own a firearm in the District of Columbia. The series led to her successful book of the same title. An autographed copy sits near my elbow. I met Emily a couple of years ago at a Gun Rights Policy Conference. She is a sharp woman, intimately familiar with the insanity of D.C. gun laws, who owns a legally registered handgun in the District of Columbia.

Stay tuned- I'm writing a story with the details on the #Palmer decision -- and how DC will be forced to allow gun carry rights.

What I find fascinating is that Emily is in an ideal position to actually exercise her second amendment rights in the District of Columbia tomorrow. She has always wanted to be able to carry her handgun, a Sig Sauer P229, if only with the 10 round magazines allowed in the District. Now she may legally do so.

She may only have a short window of opportunity, as it is possible that the District's attorneys will be able to convince an appeals court judge to issue a stay against the decision. I do not think this is likely, at least not immediately. After all, tomorrow is Sunday, the House of Representatives just voted to defund any gun law enforcement by the D.C. government, and two fairly high profile cases have been brought against obviously law abiding citizens with the very laws under question. All this works against any kind of "emergency" stay.

The summary judgment by the court does not differentiate between open and concealed carry. Emily could commemorate her celebration of freedom for men and women everywhere with a picture of her carrying with a recognizable D.C. landmark in the background.

I wish Emily the best. She is a real trooper. I would love to see that photograph!

Alan Gura reports that the District Court, after nearly five years of stonewalling, has found for the Constitutional right to bear arms outside of the home. It has struck down the prohibitions on carry outside of the home in the District of Columbia, for both residents and non-residents. It took five years and two petitions for a writ of mandamus to obtain this decision. The wording below is from the decision. From alangura.com:

In light of Heller, McDonald, and their progeny, there is no longer any
basis on which this Court can conclude that the District of Columbia’s
total ban on the public carrying of ready-to-use handguns outside the
home is constitutional under any level of scrutiny. Therefore, the Court
finds that the District of Columbia’s complete ban on the carrying of
handguns in public is unconstitutional. Accordingly, the Court grants
Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and enjoins Defendants from
enforcing the home limitations of D.C. Code § 7-2502.02(a)(4)
and enforcing D.C. Code § 22-4504(a) unless and until such time as the
District of Columbia adopts a licensing mechanism consistent with
constitutional standards enabling people to exercise their Second
Amendment right to bear arms.4 Furthermore, this injunction prohibits
the District from completely banning the carrying of handguns in public
for self-defense by otherwise qualified non-residents based solely on the fact that they are not residents of the District.

No doubt the D.C. government will work quickly to place some restrictions on carry outside of the home. But today is Saturday, the 26th of July. I refuse to beleive that they will be able to enact an ordinance or obtain a stay from the appeals court before Monday. For some period of time, it will be legal to carry a firearm outside of your home in D.C. without a permit to carry.

Justice never sleeps…. not even on a Saturday afternoon, when this opinion was just handed down.

In light of Heller, McDonald, and their progeny, there is
no longer any basis on which this Court can conclude that the District
of Columbia’s total ban on the public carrying of ready-to-use handguns
outside the home is constitutional under any level of scrutiny.
Therefore, the Court finds that the District of Columbia’s complete ban
on the carrying of handguns in public is unconstitutional. Accordingly,
the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and enjoins
Defendants from enforcing the home limitations of D.C. Code §
7-2502.02(a)(4) and enforcing D.C. Code § 22-4504(a) unless and until
such time as the District of Columbia adopts a licensing mechanism
consistent with constitutional standards enabling people to exercise
their Second Amendment right to bear arms.4 Furthermore, this injunction
prohibits the District from completely banning the carrying of handguns
in public for self-defense by otherwise qualified non-residents based solely on the fact that they are not residents of the District.

In 2012, I won Moore v. Madigan,
702 F.3d 933 (7th Cir. 2012), which struck down Illinois total ban on
the carrying of defensive handguns outside the home. With this decision
in Palmer, the nation’s last explicit ban of the right to bear
arms has bitten the dust. Obviously, the carrying of handguns for
self-defense can be regulated. Exactly how is a topic of severe and
serious debate, and courts should enforce constitutional limitations on
such regulation should the government opt to regulate. But totally
banning a right literally spelled out in the Bill of Rights isn’t going
to fly. My deepest thanks to the Second Amendment Foundation for making
this victory possible and to my clients for hanging in there.
Congratulations Americans, your capital is not a constitution-free zone.

It was only a week ago that Dennis Williams saved a neighbor that was being attacked by ferocious Pitt Bulls. He retrieved a pistol when baseball bats were not enough, and killed one dog before the others ran off. He used a .22 revolver. Now, in Louisiana, on the north side of Lake Ponchartrain, a very similar incident has occurred. A young woman was attacked along a walking trail by two Pitt Bulls. A neighbor heard the screams, just at Dennis Williams did. He brought a 9mm pistol, killed one of the attacking Pitts, and severely wounded the other. From nola.com:

Two pit bulls were shot on a walking trail near Slidell
after they attacked a woman and her miniature collie Wednesday morning,
authorities said. The woman was taken to a hospital with bite wounds to
her left arm and left leg, and her dog was transported to a local
veterinary clinic to be treated for its wounds.(snip)

A neighbor who heard the woman screaming responded and fired a shot from
a 9 mm pistol, killing one of the pit bulls and injuring the other. The
wounded dog fled, the Sheriff's Office said.

The owner of the Pitt Bulls was given a misdemeanor summons for violation of the leash law.

In both circumstances, the people attacked were walking their own dogs. Pitt Bulls are often more aggressive toward other dogs than they are to people, but when people defend their pets, the Pitts may turn on them. Neighbors who have weapons and who know how to use them may be one of the reasons that fatal dog attacks number less than 20 per year, in spite of total attacks that require treatment numbering in the hundreds of thousands. From dogbites.org:

The breeds that the CDC considers highest risk are pit bulls,
Rottweilers, German shepherds, huskies, Alaskan malamutes, Doberman
pinschers, chows, Great Danes, St. Bernards and Akitas.

While I have not seen any studies on packs of dogs, my experience is that dogs are most aggressive when running loose in a group. At that point they seem to express a "pack" mindset, much like "mob rule".

Without a human to restrain them, they revert to pack hunting instincts.

The old media in Florida tried to frame the issue as one of the limiting of Doctor's speech, but it was never about that. The law was in reaction to Doctors inappropriately asking questions about gun ownership, and potentially feeding that information into government databases. This is known as a "boundary violation" where a professional uses his power in inappropriate ways.

The 11th Circuit Cout of Appeals upheld the law yesterday, the 25th of July. It is possible that the rulling will be appealed to the Supreme Court. From the startribune.com, Marion Hammer, a proponent of the law speaks:

"The intent is to protect the privacy of firearms owners and to stop the
political interrogation of gun owners and the children of gun owners
when they seek medical care," Hammer said in an email.

A majority of the judges agreed:

"The act
simply codifies that good medical care does not require inquiry or
record-keeping regarding firearms when unnecessary to a patient's care,"
states the opinion written by U.S. Circuit Judge Gerald Tjoflat.

The Act seeks to protect patients’ privacy by restricting irrelevant inquiryand record-keeping by physicians regarding firearms. The Act recognizes that when a patient enters a physician’s examination room, the patient is in a position of relative powerlessness. The patient must place his or her trust in the physician’s guidance, and submit to the physician’s authority. In order to protect patients, physicians have for millennia been subject to codes of conduct that define the practice of good medicine and affirm the responsibility physicians bear. In keeping with these traditional codes of conduct—which almost universally mandate respect for patient privacy—the Act simply acknowledges that the practice of good medicine does not require interrogation about irrelevant, private matters.

Saturday, July 26, 2014

A prominent veterinarian and farmer, who is also a member of the North Carolina State University's Board of Trustees, was arrested in the District of Columbia after police discovered a holstered, loaded handgun in his briefcase. He apparently was scheduled to attend a meeting in the Cannon House Office Building. Capitol police discovered the firearm in an ankle holster inside of his brief case. I suspect it was the Ruger LCP, a popular, small, pistol.

I know Ron personally and he is an honest upstanding citizen and I truly
believe he forgot it was in his brief case. He wasn't planning on
committing any crime with it. My husband has often forgotten he was
carrying a gun in his car but has been very lucky and hasn't been
stopped in states that don't reciprocate with our state.

“Gun free school zones are ineffective. They make people less safe by
inviting criminals into target-rich, no-risk environments,” said Massie.
“Gun free zones prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting
themselves, and create vulnerable populations that are targeted by
criminals.

This is the second time in a week that an upstanding citizen has been ensnared by these laws of questionable constitutionality. Ryan Lee Shucard, press secretary to Representative Tom Marino, Pa, was tripped up in the same way on 18 July.

The D.C. law has been challenged in the Courts, but the court refuses to rule on it. It seems likely that the court simply does not want to rule the law unconstitutional, and so has chosen to make no ruling at all. The case will have been pending for five years on August 6th. A writ of mandamus, to require the court to make a ruling, has been requested twice.

A related case is pending in New Jersey, where a young black mother with a concealed carry permit is facing three years in jail because she was truthful with the police officer who stopped her for an "improper lane change".

Congress has the votes to pass legislation requiring all U.S. jurisdictions to honor state issued gun carry permits, just as they do state drivers licenses, but Harry Reid has blocked any progress on the issue.

Classic defensive training, as I received 40 years ago. Evaluate the situation. Use a disarm technique only if you think you are likely to get shot anyway. They are high risk techniques. Kudos to Mr. Morris.

He says his reaction was instinctive, but he only did it because he was
sure the guy was going to shoot him even if he had turned over his
money.

"The look in the guy's eyes, I was going to get shot whether I gave him
my money or not," said Morris, a Desert Storm veteran. "I had nothing to
lose. It's dumb to try it, but in that situation, with his demeanor, I
did not think I had a choice. It was either stand there and get shot or
get shot trying to get away or take the gun from him."

Authorities search for motive in gunfight between psychiatric patient and doctor

Consider that the doctor had just witnessed a murder of a coworker in front of him, and was wounded in the head and hand while defending himself and others.

It says a great deal when a British paper delivers better reporting than a supposed "elite" American paper. I am waiting for the Post to find that somewhere in his past, the good Doctor Silverman had some military or police training. Then all will be explained... because, you see, it wasn't really a "civilian" defensive gun use after all! Sarcasm alert.

We hear the tired old shibboleth trotted out in the debate over the second amendment again and again: "Nobody Wants To Take Your Guns". Except when they do. Here is Boston Police Commissioner Bill Evans on Boston Public Radio, second hour, starting about 9:20:

“For the most part, nobody in the city needs a shotgun, nobody needs a
rifle, and I don’t know a lot of people who are into hunting who, being
lifelong residents, would actually want that who lives in the city, but,
especially here in the city I want to have discretion over who’s
getting any type of gun because public safety is my main concern and as
you know it’s an uphill battle taking as many guns off the street right
now without pumping more into the system.”

There are several minutes of ignorance of crime statistics and simple desire for more power over peoples lives shown in these few minutes of discussion. But what is abundantly clear is that the Police commissioner does not think people need any kind of guns in the city, and that the police should have full authority to decide who has one and who does not. At one point, the "moderator" says, well, if it was unconstitutional, then it would be unconstitutional for handguns as well, wouldn't it? Clearly the moderator never read the Heller decision. It is just as clear where her sympathies lie.

The police commissioner, several times says that he doesn't want people to have rifles or shotguns, because they might be stolen and used by criminals. Wow. So we will trample on the rights of honest people, because we are afraid that criminals will steal. It is obvious that he does not consider the right to be armed of any importance at all.

So, if you are from the 95 percent of the country where police cannot prevent you from owning guns, and you move to Massachusetts, the police commissioner thinks he should be able to tell you whether you can own one or not. And if he decides that you should not own them? I suspect that he will either come to take them or force you to turn them in.

The end game has always been to reduce the number of firearms owners until it is politically insignificant. The police commissioner is obviously miffed that it has not happened yet.

Yes, he wants to take your guns. Or he wants to decide whether or not you can have them. It amounts to the same thing.

Kingfish reports that Hinds County bailiffs carry and can use firearms
even if they fail their weapons qualifications test. Bailiffs are
deputies who work for the county sheriff and are assigned the courtroom.
State law requires all deputies qualify with their weapon and the law
sets the minimum standard they must achieve. If a deputy can not
achieve the minimum standard they are not allowed to carry a firearm on
duty.

(snip)

Hinds County Circuit Judge Tomie Green barred the Sheriff from demoting or firing any bailiff in a 2012 court order.
Even though the bailiffs failed to meet the minimum score of 75 out of
100 in their annual qualification they are still allowed by order of
the court to carry a side arm and maintain their job as bailiff.

There were no police at the time the Constitution was written and the Bill of Rights ratified. Police as we know them did not come into being until a couple of decades later, in the UK, with Sir Robert Peel. There, giving the police power was resisted as an infringement on local power for a considerable time, and police only gradually spread across the United States.

Police forces have taken over many of the functions of local militias, and are for the most part, locally controlled. The closest modern equivalent of to the militia of the constitutional era are reserve deputies. While the Militias traditionally elected their officers, sheriffs are elected by county voters. Police chiefs are not elected, but are appointed by people who are, an unfortunate remove from responsibility to the electorate.

Sheriffs have traditionally been able to appoint deputies at will. In northern Wisconsin, we called them "dollar a year deputies" because the nominal stipulation was that they were paid a dollar a year. Deputies have arrest powers, but dollar a year deputies rarely exercise them, wisely choosing to avoid the type of entanglements that come with acting outside of emergency situations. I would bet considerable money that reservists commit far fewer crimes per capita than police do, just as concealed carry permit holders. It makes sense; people who are reservists or CCW holders tend to be self selected as the most responsible group in the community. I suspect that much the same could have been said of militia that took their duties seriously.

In the United States, police, deputies, or other officers who have HR 218/Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA) status, may legally carry concealed firearms throughout the United States and its territories, including the District of Columbia. This is an avenue for people to have effective national right to carry. It applies to many places that are prohibited to people with ordinary concealed carry permits, though those exceptions are dwindling. For example, all states now allow people to carry in restaurants that serve alcohol, but some states allow officers, but not permit holders, to carry in bars. HR 218 status is valid in places that do not have any reciprocity with other states, and in the few federal enclaves where concealed carry permits are not allowed, such as most military bases or the District of Columbia.

A small town in Michigan is being investigated for no apparent reason but that it has a large number of reserve police, about a 100, for a population of 290. From the detroitnews.com:

Earlier this month, The Detroit News reported
the auxiliary officers donate so much money that they cover the $38,000
police budget and some other government expenses.

Their
status as reserves allows them to bring their guns into no-weapon zones
such as bars and ballparks, according to state law.

Critics accused the officers of trading donations for the looser weapon rules.

Police
Chief Rob Reznick, who denied there’s any quid pro quo, said he has
nothing to hide. “We welcome the investigation,” he said. “We will
cooperate fully.”

It is not clear that the reservists mention are HR 218 qualified. However, they are issued a badge and ID, and a gun, and may have a department willing to back them up. How would any enforcer throughout the nation know that they were not?

Before Wisconsin passed their shall issue law in November of 2011, they had no provision for concealed carry by ordinary citizens. Often overlooked, however, was the ability of sheriffs to appoint deputies, and police chiefs, reservists. Far back in antiquity, I was a police reservist for a time. It was a position that I actively sought for the ability to carry a concealed weapon. A good friend of mine, a woman, obtained her "dollar a year deputy" card by going to the sheriff and telling him that she was going to carry... so give her a card and make her legal. He did just that. Perhaps the most famous fictional character to use this stratagem was Henry Bowman, in the novel, Unintended Consequences.

Over the years, some states have enacted legislation making it more difficult to become a deputy or police reservist. Some require that the applicant attend a peace officer academy, which can be a large investment in time and money, and may require political appointment in some areas. Many areas elect constables. In sparsely populated rural areas this office might be obtained with little effort.

While it is likely that national reciprocity for carry permits will become law in the near future (several attempts have been made, even during the Obama administration), the potential of becoming a reserve officer or deputy offers an interesting possibility for those who travel extensively and who wish to exercise their right to self defense during those travels.

A crazy man starts killing people in a gun free zone... only a
doctor who violated the rules fought back and stopped the killing.
Those who want a disarmed population will say this was not a mass
killing because the mass killing was stopped by an armed citizen...

Dr. Lee Silverman emptied his gun's chamber, striking patient Richard Plotts several times, Delaware County District Attorney Jack Whelan said. Plotts by then had shot the caseworker in the face and fired several shots at Silverman, including one that grazed his temple and another that struck his thumb, he said.

(snip)

"If the doctor did not have a firearm, (and) the doctor did not utilize the firearm, he'd be dead today, and I believe that other people in that facility would also be dead," Whelan said.

"The victim was getting his scuba air tank filled at a business in
the 5000 block of Sandcastle Blvd., when an unknown armed black male,
riding a bike, approached the victim," said Terri Barbera, public
information officer with the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office.

The suspect then robbed him of his wallet and took off on his bike.

The victim had a concealed weapons permit and feeling threatened, fired one shot at the suspect, according to deputies.

Friday, July 25, 2014

It is early in the investigation, but it appears that the 14-Year-Old was justified.

“They’re very upset,” says Brett King, defense attorney for the alleged
shooter. “There was a domestic incident that morning. The deceased was
actually escorted off the property and actually taken to Jefferson
County. And best we know right now is he actually walked on foot back
the seven miles, was back in the house when he was discovered by the
mother and the son. And soon there after he was shot.”

A crazy man starts killing people in a gun free zone... only a doctor who violated the rules fought back and stopped the killing. Those who want a disarmed population will say this was not a mass killing because the mass killing was stopped by an armed citizen...

A troubled patient opened fire on a
caseworker and psychiatrist in a small office at a unit of Mercy
Fitzgerald Hospital in Delaware County on Thursday afternoon, police
said, leading the doctor to draw his own weapon and shoot the assailant.

The confrontation left the caseworker, 53-year-old Theresa Hunt, dead
and the 52-year-old psychiatrist, a veteran doctor at the hospital whom
sources identified as Lee Silverman, with a graze wound to the head. The
patient, Richard Plotts, was in critical condition Thursday night from
three gunshot wounds.

In the video, it is clear that the armed citizen, Scott, who has a CCW, held the fugitives at gun point. That fact is left off of the transcript.

During the chase, the deputy who was chasing them fell so Tim and Scott got into a truck and continued to chase the men.

The men were eventually caught when the neighbors confronted them and held them there until back up arrived.

The officer who fell did hurt his shoulder during the chase - he was taken to St. Luke’s. The five men in the car are all charged with interference with official acts with injury on a peace officer. The driver is also charged with several traffic offenses.

Subscribe To Gun Watch

Background

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” -- Thomas Jefferson

Syndicated columnist Charley Reese (1937-2013): "Gun control by definition affects only honest people. When a politician tells you he wants to forbid you from owning a firearm or force you to get a license, he is telling you he doesn’t trust you. That’s an insult. ... Gun control is not about guns or crime. It is about an elite that fears and despises the common people."

The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles -- Jeff Cooper (1920-2006)

Note for non-American readers: Crime reports from America which describe an offender just as a "teen" or "teenager" almost invariably mean a BLACK teenager.

We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics.

Two lines below of a famous hymn that would be incomprehensible to Leftists today ("honor"? "right"? "freedom?" Freedom to agree with them is the only freedom they believe in)

First to fight for right and freedom,
And to keep our honor clean

It is of course the hymn of the USMC -- still today the relentless warriors that they always were.

The intellectual Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (AD 121-180) said: "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."

How much do you know about Trayvon Martin? Did you recognize him in the picture above? If not you may need to know more about him. It's all here (Backups here and here)

“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” -- Robert A. Heinlein

After all the serious stuff here, maybe we need a funny picture of a cantankerous cat